The author of A
Blueprint for Taking Back the Democratic Party, TygrBright,
does a good job analyzing the present situation and expresses
quite well the frustrations of those of us who long for a
party that shares our political principles. Unfortunately
I think she is dead wrong in her solutions. When Bright asks
why the Democrats refused to block Ashcroft or have not spoken
out more aggressively against the more appalling aspects of
the Bush agenda she's missing the point. There are much bigger
battles to be fought than Ashcroft (the Bushies weren't going
to smile and nominate Lawrence Tribe if Ashcroft had been
stopped). And it would be decidedly counter-productive to
appear committed to an ideological agenda at the expense of
the efficient functioning of government. If you doubt that
just consult with Newt Gingrich about the government shutdown
of 1995. I like Bright's vision of a new Democratic Party.
I like it in the abstract, but in the real political world
it looks a lot like the Green Party.

The Green Party is aesthetically pleasing to activists because
it is a party with an ideological purpose. In fact it has
no other purpose other than to promote its ideology. Nobody
is a Green because their parents were, or because they got
a city job through the local Green organization. They're Green
solely because they're activist. They're also a very small
group because they're activist.

To play in the political big leagues these days requires
a party with name recognition, a large population base, and
unfortunately a hefty pile of money. You need donors, you
need activists, you need less ideologically loyal party workers
and you need a very broad base of voters who feel comfortable
with your ideas and the people who are on TV presenting them.
The more narrowly you define your political vision the more
you risk turning people off. The most successful parties are
broad coalitions. It's entirely a numbers game. Fifty-one
million wasn't quite enough last November. We need to get
to fifty-five or sixty million and we're not going to get
there by recruiting outside the Birkenstock store.

Dominant parties are broad coalitions (the Republicans between
1860 and 1912; the Democrats between 1932 and 1964). It's
easy to look back at FDR and Truman and Kennedy and Johnson
and say "look what we can do if we rebuild the party
around our progressive principles," but if you look at
that era more closely you realize that most of the South was
still dominated by Democrats. Conservative Democrats. Segregationist
Democrats. On top of that, of those four Presidents only Johnson
ran on a largely progressive platform.

The Republicans are actually a good deal more fratricidal
than the Democrats. Every time I hear some right-wing Republican
saying that they are better off without Mc Cain or Jeffords
or any body in the Northeast or anybody whose knuckles don't
drag sufficiently on the ground when he walks, I feel like
celebrating. They're making their party narrower, more regional,
and an anathema to mainstream America. The Democrats can put
them into permanent minority status if they don't join them
in the pursuit of political purity. As repugnant as Tom Delay
and Bob Barr are to watch on TV the Democrats should pay the
networks to put them on.

What
The Party Should Do

Expand the base - don't cleanse it

The future of the party is in the growing minority community
and the educated suburban population that's started to feel
that the Republicans are controlled by fetus-freaks and gun
nuts. Add this to the aging population (older citizens tend
to need more services than young ones) and decreasing rural
populations, and it's clear that the party is on the growth
side of American demographics. The Democrats need to organize
heavily in the exploding Hispanic community which is going
to change the political dynamic in states like Arizona, Nevada
and maybe even Texas (someday). Florida, Georgia, North Carolina
and Louisiana (Southern states with large urban areas) are
going to be in play from now on. They should be able to hold
their own with the rich and the upper-middle class suburbanites
because many of them are not culturally comfortable with the
religious right. The aging baby-boomers and the growing number
of Americans with graduate degrees should provide all the
numbers the party needs as long as they don't seek political
purity. You have to hold on to what you have and build from
there.

But none of those groups are going to take the party seriously
if the perception is that it's a party of clowns who demonstrate
in Seattle dressed in turtle suits or fanatics who drive spikes
into trees to injure loggers. Recognize that Americans by
and large are not ideologues and consequently they will consult
their own interest on any political issue.

Take what you can get when you can get it

As painful as it may be to confront, liberals have to realize
that they will never again be able to sell anything more than
the most limited use of affirmative action. Likewise you won't
convince the parents of a teenage girl that they shouldn't
have any say in whether the girl can have a abortion. The
Freedom of Choice Act failed in Congress in 1993 because ideologues
refused to vote for a bill that allowed "parental notification".
So the bill died and they got nothing. Do you think they wish
they had passed that bill now? Sometimes you have to settle
for half the loaf.

Stridency alienates swing voters; it always will. And without
the non-activist swing voter you're the Greens, the Constitutionals,
the Libertarians. You're losers.

Politicians are a means to an end - they will sell you
out - always

Most politicians start out wanting to do good things but
you have to remember that a politician is a salesman whose
product is himself. It's easy to convince yourself of your
own indispensability even as you push the things you wanted
to accomplish further and further down the list of priorities.

Bill Clinton by all accounts was an idealistic young man
when he came of age in the late 60's, but after he carried
the Democratic party's banner into the White House he turned
his back on the party's decades long commitment to the poor
and set back the cause of national health care 20 years. This
was because Clinton's priority by that time was himself. He
existed by then to ride in Air Force One, hobnob with the
rich and powerful and plug Panatelas into star-struck valley
girls. He had become more important than any policy and he
wasn't going to take any risks (except those involving thong
underwear) that endangered his position of power. Clinton
is not alone; any politician will do this and the only way
to prevent them from doing it is to have a large enough base
to give them a spine.

Stand for principle - when you can. Be practical in the
close ones

To briefly revisit the Greens: Ralph Nader. He's the father
of the consumer movement, a thorn in the side the corporations
that pay low wages, make unsafe products and poison the atmosphere.
He's a great American. You could never say that about Al Gore,
but if you voted for Nader last November and don't wish now
that you had that vote back, then there's no hope for you.
It's time to get fitted for the turtle suit. I voted for Nader
in 1996 because I was angered by Clinton's shallow disregard
for the issues of those who elected him. At the same time
I knew that Clinton would win. If I thought Dole had a shot
I almost certainly would have suppressed my anger and voted
for Clinton.

Winning parties achieve success by making the largest number
of people feel politically and culturally comfortable. We
may not always like it but "big tents" win. Small ones lose.